- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:07:14 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak, Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:43:28 -0700: > On Mar 27, 2010, at 5:17 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/06/30/irony ... >> <strike>the</strike> ... >> The latter does not conform to the author conformance requirements >> present in the document. How is this less accessible than the >> alternative? If we ask that was meant as real editorial mark-up, then <del> could have been better. Why not in combination with <strike>: <strike><del>the</del></strike> >> How does it increase maintenance costs? How does it >> increase document sizes? > > It should be noted that the rationale for author conformance > requirements explicitly calls out the style attribute as a piece of > presentational markup that is allowed notwithstanding the general > reasons for the ban: > > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#presentational-markup> > > "The only remaining presentational markup features in HTML are the > style attribute and the style element. In the e-mail message from Ian that Anne pointed to, Ian spoke about *media* specific presentational elements/features. Can't see that <style> meets that criteria - it is not "presentational". [...] > So you could argue that this exception is not well justified (and > style should be banned too), or that the rationale for any > presentational markup to be banned is not well justified, or that the > style attribute and stye element are the wrong place to draw the > line. A test of <del> against <strike> against <span style=text-decoration:line-through> in some terminal based web browsers that I installed via BSD ports: UA: Rendering Results for <strike>: --- Lynx: [DEL: foo :DEL] {same as for <strike>} W3m: [S: foo :S] elinks: _foo_ {underlined text} links: foo {colored text} netrik: [- foo-] retawq: [[foo]] Results for <del>: --- Lynx: [DEL: foo :DEL] W3m: [DEL: foo :DEL] elinks: foo {no styling at all} links: foo {no styling at all} netrik: [- foo-] retawq: [[foo]] Results of <span style=text-decoration:line-through>: --- Lynx: text {no styling at all} W3m: text {no styling at all} elinks: text {no styling at all} links: text {no styling at all} netrik: text {no styling at all} retawq: text {no styling at all} Also tested Lobo, where <del> does NOT create a line-through (however Lobo has some CSS support). Summary: Span does not render as anything. <del> has a particular rendering in W3m, Lynx, netrik and retawq. The latter 3 render <strike> and <del> the same way. The styled <span> had no effect in the text browsers. The eLinks browser, the Links browser and Lobo only "make a difference" for <strike> - they don't render <del> in a particular way. Conclusion: 1) <strike> has a little bit wider support than <del> in these low resource browsers. 2) <strike> need not be media specific. [... snipped Maciej's biblical references ...] Exiting analogies ... ;-) > Banning <font> in general, rather than, say, only when used in a way > that actually harms accessibility, is analogous to this reasoning. By > having the blanket ban, we avoid the presumed negative externality, > without having to closely inquire about the particular circumstances > of each use. The latter requires too much judgment for a conformance > checker. I think that the ban on some of the presentational elements have raised the awareness of the need to make pages accessible across media. However, I believe we do not need this simplistic ban anymore. [...] -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 23:07:57 UTC